Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 143498 (ALL)

SMT.SAVITRI DEVI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. (REVENUE) LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/5498/2025 · 2025-06-04

Jaspreet Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34500 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5498 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt.Savitri Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue) Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs :- "i). To issue a writ of mandamus and pass suitable order directing the opp. party no.2 and 3 to incorporate the name of petitioner in revenue record in pursuance of order dated 20.9.2024 passed by Nayab Tehsildar, Unnao in Case No.12500/ 2024 computerized Case No.T202410690112500 :Smt. Savitri Vs. GRam Sabha under Section 34 of U.P. Rajashwa Sanhita contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition within the time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a mutation order was passed in favour of the petitioner after the death of her husband. The said order dated 20.9.2024 has not yet been incorporated in the revenue records. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said mutation order, an application has been moved by the petitioner, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.10 but the same has not yet been decided nor the order dated 28.9.2024 has been incorporated in the revenue records. Noticing the limited scope of the controversy, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending rather ends of justice can be met by issuing appropriate directions to respondent nos.2 and 3. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of finally with direction to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider and decide the aforesaid application( in case if not already decided) and after noticing as to whether there is any legal impediment. It is expected that the said application shall be decided, expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. It is made clear that the court has not examined the case of either parties on merits and the court concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.6.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench